Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Safety Management in Aviation Industry and related
Similar to Safety Management in Aviation Industry and related (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Safety Management in Aviation Industry and related
- 1. 2 April 2024 Page 1 Safety Management InfoShare 2013 – Singapore August 29-30, 2013 Captain Andreas Meyer Safety Management Officer, ISM, Air Navigation Bureau, ICAO HQ Montreal
- 2. 2 April 2024 Page 2 Presentation Outline • Annex 19 Evolution - Benefits - Implementation - Impact - Promotion • State Safety Management Responsibility SSP Framework - GASP - USOAP - SSP Practical Questions • Safety Management System SMS Framework - SMS Practical Questions • The future developments of safety management Amendments - SM Work Programme
- 3. 2 April 2024 Page 3 ANNEX 19 Evolution, Benefits, Implementation, Impact & Promotion
- 4. 2 April 2024 Page 4 Annex 19 - Evolution • Adopted by the Council on 25 February 2013 • Became effective on 15 July 2013 • Becomes applicable on 14 November 2013
- 5. 2 April 2024 Page 5 Annex 19 - Evolution • Consolidation of existing and overarching SARPS from six different Annexes • Elevation of the four components of the SSP framework to a Standard • State safety oversight provisions broadened to all service providers • Safety data collection, analysis and exchange were transferred from Annex 13 • SMS framework now applies to the design and manufacture of aircraft consolidation new provisions
- 6. 2 April 2024 Page 6 Annex 19 - Benefits • Highlights the importance of safety management at the State level; • Enhances safety by consolidating safety management provisions applicable to multiple aviation domains; • Facilitates the evolution of safety management provisions; • An opportunity to further promote the implementation of SMS and SSP provisions; and • A process established to analyze feedback received regarding Annex 19 and safety management implementation
- 7. 2 April 2024 Page 7 Annex 19 - Implementation • Third Edition, Doc 9859, was published on 8 May 2013 – Restructured according to the SSP and SMS Frameworks (Annex 19) – Contains detailed guidance and tools for SSP and SMS implementation • Updated ICAO safety management training material • Regional Aviation Safety Groups
- 8. 2 April 2024 Page 8 Annex 19 - Impact • Impact to States – Administrative work for the review and amendment of existing legislation and regulations; – Update to references to existing Annex provisions; – Notification of differences to Annex 19, if any (State Letter 8/3 12/30 refers) • Impact to Service Providers and International General Aviation Operators – Updates to operation manuals and other materials
- 9. 2 April 2024 Page 9 Annex 19 - Promotion • ICAO Safety Management Website • Information Presentation • ICAO Information Flyer • www.icao.int/safetymanagement • Regional Aviation Safety Groups
- 10. 2 April 2024 Page 10 STATE SAFETY MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITY SSP Framework, GASP, USOAP, SSP Practical Questions
- 11. 2 April 2024 Page 11 State Safety Management Responsibilities Proactively address safety risk
- 12. 2 April 2024 Page 12 State Safety Management Responsibilities • Re-enforce the role played by the State in managing safety at the State level • Stressing the concept of overall safety performance in all domains, in coordination with service providers Each State shall establish a State Safety Program /…… (ICAO Annex 19, Chapter 3, Paragraph 3.1.1)
- 13. 2 April 2024 Page 13 State Safety Management Responsibilities – SSP Framework State safety policy and objectives State Safety Risk Management State safety assurance State safety promotion • Components The components of the SSP framework have been elevated to the status of a Standard to match the status of the SMS framework.
- 14. 2 April 2024 Page 14 State Safety Management Responsibilities State Safety Policy and Objectives • State safety legislative framework • State safety responsibilities and accountabilities • Accident and incident investigation • Enforcement policy
- 15. 2 April 2024 Page 15 State Safety Management Responsibilities State Safety Risk Management • Safety requirements for service provider’s SMS • Agreement on service provider’s safety performance – Approved training organizations; – Operators of aeroplanes or helicopters authorized to conduct international commercial air transport; – Approved maintenance organizations providing services to operators as described in bullet 2; – Organizations responsible for the type design or manufacture of aircraft; – Air traffic services (ATS) providers, and; – Operators of certified aerodromes – International general aviation operators of large or turbojets aeroplanes.
- 16. 2 April 2024 Page 16 State Safety Management Responsibilities State Safety Assurance • Safety oversight • Safety data collection, analysis and exchange • Safety-data-driven targeting of oversight of areas of greater concern or need
- 17. 2 April 2024 Page 17 State Safety Management Responsibilities State Safety Promotion • Internal training, communication and dissemination of safety information • External training, communication and dissemination of safety information
- 18. 2 April 2024 Page 18 Global Aviation Safety Plan (GASP): 2013 • The GASP calls for those States with mature safety oversight systems to progress toward full implementation of SSP. • In the near term, States that have achieved effective implementation (EI) levels of over 60 per cent are to fully implement SSP by 2017, with SSP fully implemented in all Member States by the year 2022.
- 19. 2 April 2024 Page 19 USOAP CMA on SSP • Safety Management questions will be integrated into the SAAQ/PQ amendment process. • The safety management oriented SAAQ and PQs will be available in May 2014. • The PQs will become applicable for States in November 2014. • The applicability and relevance of the questions will be reviewed and, if necessary, amended annually.
- 20. 2 April 2024 Page 20 Rollout of the Safety Management-oriented SAAQ and PQs • The safety management-oriented SAAQ and PQs will be posted on the USOAP website: https://soa.icao.int/usoap/, once they are available. • The availability and applicability of the safety management-oriented SAAQ and PQs will also be published on the ICAO Safety Management website: http://www.icao.int/safety/SafetyManagement/. • An Electronic Bulletin will be published to inform Member States of the USOAP audit of implementation of the ICAO safety management provisions.
- 21. 2 April 2024 Page 21 SSP Practical Questions • Shall a State file difference to the provisions of Annex 19 on safety management ? – YES • Shall a State file differences to the provisions of Annex 19 on safety data collection ? – YES • Should a State establish a specific unit responsible for the SSP ? – NOT necessarily
- 22. 2 April 2024 Page 22 SERVICE PROVIDER SAFETY MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITY SMS Framework, SMS Practical Questions
- 23. 2 April 2024 Page 23 Safety Management System SMS Framework Safety policy and objectives Safety Risk Management Safety assurance Safety promotion • Components The Objective of a service provider’s SMS is to: – Identify hazards – Assess the related risks – Develop appropriate mitigations – Monitor compliance – Promotes safety
- 24. 2 April 2024 Page 24 Safety Management System Service Provider Responsibilities Safety Policy and Objectives • Management commitment and responsibility • Safety accountabilities • Appointment of key safety personnel • Coordination of emergency response planning • SMS documentation
- 25. 2 April 2024 Page 25 Safety Management System Service Provider Responsibilities Safety Risk Management • Hazard identification • Safety risk management and mitigation
- 26. 2 April 2024 Page 26 Safety Management System Service Provider Responsibilities Safety Assurance • Safety performance monitoring and measurement • The management of change • Continuous improvement of the SMS
- 27. 2 April 2024 Page 27 Safety Management System Service Provider Responsibilities Safety Promotion • Training and education • Safety communication
- 28. 2 April 2024 Page 28 SMS Practical Questions • Does a safety management system differ from traditional control methods ? – YES • Should an organization with several lines of business present only one SMS manual ? – Logically YES • Does the SMS Manual require CAA approval ? – NO – The process requires agreement
- 29. 2 April 2024 Page 29 THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS OF SAFETY MANAGEMENT SARPS Amendments & Safety Management Work Programme
- 30. 2 April 2024 Page 30 The future developments of safety management SARPS • Future amendments to Annex 19 are expected to follow a three year amendment cycle • An impact assessment will be required for any proposed changes to Annex 19 provisions to ensure stability and continuity in the implementation of SSP and SMS for all States • While overarching safety management SARPs will be included in Annex 19, new sector- specific management provisions are expected to be included in the appropriate Annexes.
- 31. 2 April 2024 Page 31 The future developments of safety management SARPS • Safety management work programme – Development of amendments to SSP provisions; – Development of amendments to SMS provisions; – Development of emergency response plan provisions; – Enhancement of provisions for the collection, analysis and protection of safety data and safety information; – Further development of SMS and SSP implementation and assessment tools; – Extension of the applicability of the SMS provisions; and – Enhancement of provisions for the integration of SMS and SSP activities
- 32. 2 April 2024 Page 32 Thank You
Editor's Notes
- In response to High-level Safety Conference 2010 (HLSC/2010) Recommendation 2/5, the ICAO Council supported a two-phased approach for the creation of a new safety management Annex: a) the first phase to consolidate existing and overarching Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPS), currently contained in as many as six different Annexes, into asingle new Annex; and b) the second phase for the development of new safety management provisions.
- Sources of Annex 19, First Edition are tracked in Attachment D to State Letter AN 8/3-13/30 – As a result of the adoption of Annex 19, consequential amendments to Annexes 1 (Amdt. 171), 6, Part I (Amdt. 37), II (Amdt. 32) and III (Amdt. 18), 8 (Amdt. 104), 11 (Amdt. 49), 13 (Amdt. 14) and 14, Volume I (Amdt. 11) have also been adopted. Minor modifications were made as necessary for the purposes of clarity and consistency. In addition, the following amendments were made for harmonization purposes: a) the four components of the SSP framework were elevated to a Standard in Chapter 3; b) State safety oversight provisions (Appendix 1) were derived from Annex 6, Part I, Appendix 5 and Annex 6, Part III, Appendix 1 and their applicability broadened to all service providers identified in Chapters 3 and 4; c) Safety data collection analysis and exchange (Chapter 5) provisions were transferred from Annex 13. Legal guidance for protection of safety information (Attachment E to Annex 13) is replicated as Attachment B to Annex 19; and d) the SMS framework (Appendix 2) now applies to type design and manufacture of aircraft.
- Highlight the importance of safety management at the State level; Enhance safety by consolidating safety management provisions applicable to multiple aviation domains Facilitate the evolution of safety management provisions; An opportunity to further promote the implementation of SMS and SSP provisions; and A process established to analyze feedback received regarding Annex 19 and safety management implementation
- The SMM has been restructured according to the SSP and SMS frameworks and includes detailed guidance and tools developed for SSP and SMS implementation. ICAO has given a high priority to the finalization and translation of this document. Further information is available on the Safety Management website. The ICAO The regional aviation safety groups (RASGs) have been invited to identify activities in support of ICAO’s roll-out plan and the effective and continuing implementation of SMS and SSP provisions. safety management training material is being updated to reflect the third edition of the SMM, the first edition of Annex 19 and the latest safety management developments. Compliance to all applicable SARPs remains the foundation on which State safety programmes are established. The concepts of performance or risk management in Annex 19 do not absolve the States from complying with the existing provisions in other Annexes, which remains fundamental to aviation safety.
- The EFOD system was updated from 15 July 2013 to allow States to begin identifying and notifying their differences to ICAO States are expected to review any difference(s) currently filed to overaching safety management SARPs in Annex 1, 6, 8, 11, 13, 14 Attachment D to the State Letter should support in this task – a special report of the currently filed differences will be generated and made available on the USOAP website.
- The regional aviation safety groups (RASGs) have been invited to identify activities in support of ICAO’s roll-out plan and the effective and continuing implementation of SMS and SSP provisions. safety management training material is being updated to reflect the third edition of the SMM, the first edition of Annex 19 and the latest safety management developments.
- With air traffic projected to double in the next 15 years, safety risks must be addressed proactively to ensure that this significant capacity expansion is carefully managed and supported through strategic regulatory and infrastructure developments.
- An SSP is a management system for the management of safety by the State. The frame work includes four components and 11 related elements. The SSP implementation is commensurate with the size and complexity of the States aviation system and necessitates coordination among the authorities responsible for the individual elements of civil aviation functions in the States. The SSP and SMS framework must be viewed as complementary, yet distinct.
- a legislative framework and specific regulations (in accordance with SARPS), that define HOW the State will conduct the management of Safety. A periodic review of the legislative framework ensures the relevance and appropriateness of the States. The framework covers all aviation sectors and administrative functions. Identify, define and document requirements, responsibilities and accountabilities regarding the establishment and maintenance of SSP. Meeting the States Safety objectives with the continuous improvement of SSP. Statement about provisions of necessary resources. The sole objective is the prevention of accidents and incidents – not the apportioning of blame and liability. An investigation organization or entity must be functionally independent from any other organization, particular the CAA, whose interests could conflict with the task entrusted. – limited resources might make it necessary for the State to join a Regional Accident & Incident Investigation Organization (RAIO). The intent of a enhanced enforcement policy is to ensure that a necessary distinction is made between deliberate/gross violation and unintentional error/ mistake. The State might need to formalize the need for its service providers to have internal disciplinary procedures that incorporate and quivalent enhancement. - > service provider are expected to have an internal process to manage safety/quality deviations (in accordance with an SMS).
- Ensures that each States service providers implement the necessary hazard identification process and risk management controls. Part of this requirement includes a mechanism for agreement with individual service providers on acceptable safety performance levels to be achieved through their SMS. The service providers proposed safety performance indicators (SPIs) and their associated targets are reviewed and agreed upon. (it is possible that for the State to accept and SMS implementation plan allowing for acceptance of a service provider’s SPI at a later phase of its SMS implementation process. The details of individual service provider's procedures for hazard identification and risk management will be commensurate with the complexity of each organization. Service providers may require hazard identification and risk management from non regulated organizations (sub contractors to the service provider) through contractual arrangements.
- The states surveillance program should be data driven so that its resources may be focused and prioritized according areas of highest risk or safety concern. A mechanism to ensure effective monitoring of the eight critical elements of the safety oversight function is a requirement for the States obligations. The State has established a safety data collection and processing system (SDCPS) to ensure capture, storage and aggregation of data on accidents, incidents and hazards obtained through the State’s mandatory and voluntary reporting systems. -> ensure continued availability of safety data through appropriate safety information protection. Procedures for the sharing of information shall be made available. These safety data enable the State to develop SSP safety indicators which, with their respective target and alert settings, will the serve as the safety measurement and monitoring mechanism (ALoSP). A mechanism for calibrating the scope or frequency of surveillance of service providers according to actual safety performance (risk-based approach) facilitates the allocation or resources according to areas of greater risk, concern or need. – concept of Safety Data and risk-based surveillance (ORP – Organizational Risk Profile)
- Established communication channel between State regulatory organizations responsible for the different aviation sectors. Internal training prioritized to personnel involved in implementation and oversight (CE-4). Sharing, communication and coordination amongst the organizations to avoid creation of conflicting SMS requirements or oversight / acceptance criteria for different aviation sectors. A preferred two-way communication to allow feedback from industry should complement the dissemination of a States information on SSP documentation and SMS requirements / implementation.
- · ICAO PQs do not describe specific requirements on the location of documentation/regulations that are developed to meet SARPs; · PQs developed to reflect Annex 19 SAPRs will be promulgated well in advance of their effective date; · Annex 19 does not reflect requirements on how the State shall structure its Authority to comply with the SARPs; · CMA plans to retain the 8 audit area structure and will incorporate within the current framework PQs related to Annex 19 SARPs;
- Yes, the State will have to file differences against Annex 19, if any, because most of the safety management provisions in Annexes 1, 6, 8, 11, 13 and 14 are transferred in Annex 19 and will no longer exist in these Annexes*. In addition, Annex 19 contains some new provisions as explained in question n’2. Yes, differences, if any, would have to be filed in both Annexes because “Duplication” means that the provision have been transferred into Annex 19 and have been kept in the original Annex, with amendment, when needed. Such amendment, if any, may justify some different approaches in filing differences. This is particularly relevant for the collection, analysis and protection of safety data where different meanings could be given to safety data, should it be data collected in the course of an SMS or SSP implementation, or data collected in the course of an accident/ incident investigation such as CVR our DFDR. In addition, as the provisions have been duplicated, it is not excluded that, in the future, these provisions might evolve separately, due to the different contexts of the Annexes they belongs to Current ICAO guidance material does not specify that SSP administration should be performed by an independent separate unit/ function within the State’s regulatory organization(s). As such, the choice of whether or not to establish a separate unit or incorporate the SSP function into an existing unit is left to the State. It would be reasonable for the SSP administration unit to be part of the SSP placeholder organization.
- A SMS regulation by the CAA can include the requirement for a service provider to have an SMS in place which addresses four high level safety objectives. a) identifies safety hazards; b) ensures the implementation of the remedial action necessary to maintain agreed safety performance; c) provides for continuous monitoring and regular assessment of safety performance; and d) aims at a continuous improvement of the overall performance of the safety management system.
- Senior management develops and endorses the safety policy, which is signed by the accountable executive. Once the safety policy has been developed senior management should: a) visibly endorse the policy; b) communicate the policy to all appropriate staff; c) establish safety performance targets for the SMS and the organization; and d) establish safety objectives that identify what the organization intends to achieve in terms of safety management. The safety policy must include a commitment to: a) achieve the highest safety standards; b) comply with all applicable regulatory requirements; In the SMS context accountability means being ultimately responsible for safety performance, whether at the overall SMS level (accountable executive) or specific product/process levels (members of the management team). This includes being responsible for ensuring appropriate corrective actions are taken to address hazards and errors reported, as well as responding to accidents and incidents. The appointment of a qualified safety manager is key to the effective implementation and functioning of a safety services office. The safety manager may be identified by different titles in different organizations, but for the purposes of this manual the generic term safety manager is used The applicability of emergency response planning extends to providers of aviation products that may be attributable to, or affected by, an aviation safety occurrence. The product provider’s processes are generally called “contingency product support” and include emergency airworthiness action, alert services, and aircraft accident on-site support. The product provider need not change the name of these product support processes to ERP processes; however, they must be noted appropriately in the organization’s SMS documentation. Refer to Appendix 3 for further guidance on ERP. The SMS documentation should include a top-level description (exposition) document, which describes the organization’s SMS according to its components and elementsThis top-level SMS document may be a stand-alone document or it can be a distinct “SMS section/chapter” within an existing organization- or CAA-approved document. Where details of the organization’s SMS processes are already addressed in existing documents, appropriate cross referencing to such documents is sufficient.
- Service providers should ensure that the safety risks encountered in aviation activities are controlled in order to achieve their safety performance targets Safety risk management requires the service provider to develop and maintain a formal process to identify hazards that may contribute to aviation safety-related occurrences. Hazards may exist in ongoing aviation activities or be inadvertently introduced into an operation whenever changes are introduced to the aviation system. The service provider’s safety information management system should include safety assessment documentation that contains hazard descriptions, the related consequences, the assessed likelihood and severity of the safety risks, and required safety risk controls The process starts with the identification of hazards and their potential consequences. The safety risks are then assessed in terms of probability and severity, to define the level of safety risk (safety risk index). If the assessed safety risks are deemed to be tolerable, appropriate action is taken and the operation continues. The completed hazard identification and safety risk assessment and mitigation process is documented and approved as appropriate and forms part of the safety information management system.
- Safety assurance consists of processes and activities undertaken by the service provider to determine whether the SMS is operating according to expectations and requirements.While quality assurance typically focuses on the organization’s compliance with regulatory requirements, safety assurance specifically monitors the effectiveness of safety risk controls. Information used to measure the organization’s safety performance is generated through its safety reporting systems. There are two types of reporting systems: a) mandatory incident reporting systems; and b) voluntary incident reporting systems. Change may affect the appropriateness or effectiveness of existing safety risk mitigation strategies. In addition, new hazards, and related safety risks may be inadvertently introduced into an operation whenever change occurs. Such hazards should be identified so as to enable the assessment and control of any related safety risk: Criticality, Stability of systems and operational environments, Past performance Continuous improvement is measured through the monitoring of an organization’s safety performance indicators and is related to the maturity and effectiveness of an SMS.
- Safety promotion encourages a positive safety culture and creates an environment that is conducive to the achievement of the service provider’s safety objectives. A positive safety culture is characterized by values, attitudes and behaviour that are committed to the organization’s safety efforts. The safety manager should provide current information and facilitate training relevant to specific safety issues encountered by organizational units. The provision of training to appropriate staff, regardless of their level in the organization, is an indication of management’s commitment to an effective SMS. The service provider should communicate the organization’s SMS objectives and procedures to all operational personnel.
- One notable difference is that while traditional safety and quality systems were managed at the certificate or divisional level - for example, having separate quality systems for flight operations and engineering, SMS looks at the enterprise as a whole. While the majority of SMS activity will continue to be directed toward particular specialist functions, the system is also concerned with how all relevant functions are integrated. If one organization having more than 1 line of business or holding more than 1 certificate has following characteristics: one Accountable Executive, one management team, one SMS/ QMS manager, one registered company, holds more than one certificate such as flight operations, maintenance, design & manufacturing, and the certificates are inter-related from an aviation SMS/ QMS perspective, and those certificates or lines of businesses are supporting departments/ divisions of the same company, then the logical thing is to have one overall SMS with one manual which is integrated across all the relevant divisions of the organization. This rationale would be the same in the matter of the organization’s QMS as well. Ultimately, it is up to the Certificate(s) issuing Authorities in agreement with the organization to make the final decision, which best suits the business model of the organization. Annex 19, Chapter 4 states that the SMS of the organization shall be made acceptable to the State(s) responsible for the organization’s approval. This does not mean that the SMS or its manual should receive an approval independent of the organization’s existing CAA approval process. In principle, the SMS manual should be treated no differently from the organization’s other CAA approved or accepted documentation. The SMS manual should be subject to the agreement of the State/CAA as part of the SMS assessment and acceptance process (eg SPIs within the SMS manual will require CAA agreement). It may be a standalone manual or a dedicated section of an appropriate CAA approved Organization Exposition Manual or Procedures Manual. For instance an aircraft operator having its own maintenance and training services may have one integrated SMS manual covering the three types of activities or prefer to have its SMS functions addressed separately in each domain with a coordination function. Amendments to the SMS manual or equivalent should follow the same principle.